Some readers estimate that Kickstarter is creating a second golden age of gaming.

Earlier this week we published our Kickstarter Game Watch, an occasional feature that reports on some of the biggest and most interesting video game projects currently happening inside the crowd-funding service. Kickstarter was launched in April of 2009, and since then it has continued to gather attention as an incubator of original projects, including many video games. In his report this week, Kyle highlighted the funding gap that Republique needed to close before its funding deadline on Friday, a feat it managed with just hours to spare.

The Ars OpenForum and the Ars communities on social networks have been joining in the conversation, analyzing the current state crowd-funded games. In our gaming forum, members in the thread titled “Kickstarter Projects” are currently discussing some interesting game projects to watch. Dragondazdstarted the thread back in March with a request: “I'd like to be notified of promising Kickstarter games to fund and how well they go once they get funded/released,” and listed a couple of games worth tracking.

As some suggestions of games worth watching began to trickle into the thread, the discussion began to turn toward the quality of the games themselves. By their very nature, some Kickstarter gaming projects are going to take an iterative approach to their development, and some of the OpenForum members cited examples of projects that don’t seem very solid. As the weeks have gone by, other OpenForum members have addressed some of the business concerns that are inherent in funding games that are still works in progress. Viridis said, ”In the long term I cannot imagine Kickstarter being a true replacement for publishing funding unless there is real talk of return on investment, or projects reaching a bit more design maturity before being presented.”

Accountability and reporting of results also seems to be important to Ars readers. 劉煒, a member of the Ars Google+ page, said, “Wish there was a 'nonstarter' so you can fail projects. Also looking for the first wave of 'we promised this, but couldn't deliver' crashes.”

Of course, contributing $25 to a larger endeavor can make gamers feel more connected with those who create the gaming experiences. Foom acknowledges this effect, but notes that he is still on the fence: “I've been a bit torn over Kickstarter. On one hand I like the enthusiasm and the feeling of getting back to the roots of what gaming was in the old days. On the other, I'm worried that most of these projects will end up being huge disappointments.”

Some OpenForum membersfeel optimism about certain projects and titles. cblais19 shares positivity by saying, “Honestly, out of the games I've funded so far, The Banner Saga is the one I'm most looking forward to by far. Glad they managed to make their goals for the instrumental soundtrack, combined with a reasonably small scope I think they're going to have a really high quality release here.”

Those who pledge to support successful Kickstarter games can earn tangible "thank you" rewards such as personalized copies of the game and other bonus gifts. What’s more, as some Ars Technica readers on Twitter noted, there are also some less-tangible, more-personal rewards that come from Kickstarter funding. @Zammy_bg notes, “It also gives you this feeling of being part of something. You become much more closer to the devs. There is emotional commitment. You see how the project gets funded, you get info from 'the kitchen'. This does not happen with [a] normal AAA product.”

But can these independent, crowd-funded projects really have a solid future in the gaming ecosystem? Moodysuggests that one genre in particular will have trouble attracting funding unless the developers address pricing in their model: “...kickstarter for MMOs ((full MMOs, not tech demos)) just seems like a bad bet for me unless one of the lower levels includes a lifetime subscription option and their cost estimate for Kickstarter includes base server operation for 6 months.”

Indie games seem to be supporting the needs of many gamers right now. The forum thread cites many games that Ars readers have invested in, and readers like @DarrenAthertonsumtalk about some of the benefits of these independent projects: “Indie games play my favourite part of the gaming industry. So many gems to uncover, many of them free. Bringing games to the masses!” @0xabad1deasays indie projects are part of “the second golden age of PC gaming.”

Right before Republique had met its goal, cblais19 said, “…hope they make it. The iOS ecosystem needs games of this level, both to show it can be done, and to become a more legit competitor to the separate game consoles.”

How do you think Kickstarter projects and other crowd-funded games will impact gaming in the future? If you’re new to the OpenForum, register for an account and join in the discussion.

Promoted Comments

I was very tempted to donate to the double fine adventure and Wasteland 2, but ultimately, it's asking me to put money in for a game that may or may not ever actually get made and may or may not suck when it's finished. Ultimately, I'd rather hold on to my cash and buy it when it's done, if it's good.

Wasteland 2 and DF's project are the things you can count on to most likely be done, as in with near certainty. They're established teams of industry pros with reputations to maintain and now they've got a few million dollars' worth of responsibility to their backers. It's the games by people freshly out of a CS degree that you should think twice about.

The good thing about Kickstarter is that you can choose how much to contribute. I gave $100 to Wasteland 2 because I'm a big fan of Wasteland, and I have a pretty high degree of confidence in the team creating it. On other projects that I have relatively high confidence in, I tend to contribute around $50. For a project that seems like it has a higher risk of failure, I'd be more inclined to contribute in the $15 - $25 range.

I don't expect every project I help fund to produce a great product. Some of them will likely be flops, but that doesn't bother me at all. I contribute so that the creators at least get the opportunity to try, even if not all of them are successful. To me, it's worth a few dollars to give them a chance.

I'd much rather pay for the creation of something new (even if it might be a flop) than pay for a copy of something that already exists (even if I know it's good), and I'm willing to pay even more for the creation of something new from a creator who has earned my trust by creating good things in the past.

29 Reader Comments

What I'd like to see is an in-depth look at how Kickstarter game projects worked out before Double Fine came along with the promise of a new Tim Schafer game. Kickstarter has been around for a few years (first project I noticed was MakerBeam back in 2009, which was a success and is now being carried by places like SparkFun), but seemed to be kind of low-key until this new surge in game developer interest. What kind of games were being funded through KS beforehand? How did that work out?

What I'd like to see is an in-depth look at how Kickstarter game projects worked out before Double Fine came along with the promise of a new Tim Schafer game. Kickstarter has been around for a few years (first project I noticed was MakerBeam back in 2009, which was a success and is now being carried by places like SparkFun), but seemed to be kind of low-key until this new surge in game developer interest. What kind of games were being funded through KS beforehand? How did that work out?

Ticho @PA did compare how much games got on kickstarter before and after Double fine and the numbers were really extremely skewed. Sadly I really can't find the right post, but if you go through the last few weeks of PA posts by him you should find it - or maybe just better googlefu.

How those early games turned out could be interesting yes, although I think the difference in budget could make it not a completely fair comparison

I think that's the wrong word to use. Kickstarter isn't really about investing. In fact I don't even think that was a legal operation back when they were founded. Instead what you do is donate because you like the idea of something and want it to come about. The only thing you can get out of a successful project is whatever your donation level qualified you for and/or the ability to buy the finished product along with everybody else. There's no monetary Return on Investment.

I heard of kickstarter a long time ago via an article by Robert Boyd about how his career got rolling, but didn't back anything until Double Fine's project. Since then i've backed a lot of stuff. Games and software (Spriter and Light Room). For all the people who say stuff along the lines of "what if the games is a huge disappointment?" or "What if they don't deliver?" These are the risks there's no sugar coating it. Obviously someone of Tim Schafer's or Brian Fargo's level of involvement and experience people are going to be more trusting, more willing, and overall more comfortable with donating money to their projects. These guys also have way more on the line then most. They have not only a reputation but look at double fine Tim Schafer has an entire business that someone with the right lawyer could probably come after. Looking at the lesser known guys there is a risk attached with a whole lot of what if's. that's why i've been opting to go with the pledge level that usually is the equivalent to preordering the game. I'm willing to preorder a game that looks sweet and if it sucks oh well, it's no different than if I were to go to target, bestbuy, gamestop, or online thru amazon or steam and preorder and coming home to a crap game. At least this way I'm helping guys (and girls) take some creative risks. There is a bit of mitigation to the risks ...look at republique. those guys were from AAA backgrounds Metal Gear Solid, Halo, FEAR, and some other stuff but they are a new studio and can't afford to eat a failure. They are probably sitting on enough capital to get stuff started and a bit of a pad to show people that they can put their money where their mouth is. Hopefully the bigger publishers will continue to see their talent make the games (that they probably pitched to their bosses originally only to be shot down) continue to be successful and change the way they treat their workforce.

I am willing to take the risk on paying out a relatively small cost for a pre-order, in exchange for having games in niche markets that may otherwise never get off the ground.

Kickstarter is a chance to get away from COD and BF XCIV and get to some unique games or revive genres that have become stagnant in recent years. Just have to wait and see if more projects deliver the goods than horribly fail.

One thing that I have been wondering about is what happens to the games after they deliver. If there is a huge kickstarer success, how would the funders feel if it is being sold on Steam for $5 next year and making the programmer millions while they paid for development and put up more money for a copy of the same game. I also anticipate the first wave of fail to delivers like the Chinese commenter in the article. I am bearish on Kickstarter.

Also to the point on investing, one of the definitions of Invest is "to use, give, or devote, as for a purpose or to achieve something." If you give with the purpose of achieveing or recieving something you are investing by some definition of the word - even if what you are expecting to achieve is something other than monetary return.

The attraction to supporting a video game Kickstarter project is almost always in the realm of intangibles. Even buttons and T-shirts aren't about the physical product but about feeling camaraderie or a sense of purpose in promoting something that you connect with and want to share. There is a feeling of shared achievement and maybe even empowerment when you support someone's efforts and open a doorway for them to to chase their dreams. It's especially nice when your dreams align with the people who are pushing the project.

This is why I won't care one iota if a game releases for much cheaper than what I paid. I didn't pay for the game, I paid specifically to support the creation of the game.

This is why I won't care one iota if a game releases for much cheaper than what I paid. I didn't pay for the game, I paid specifically to support the creation of the game.

I share the sentiments. Sure, I like goodies too but I support Kickstarters that I feel should be made. If I just want a game or an iPod dock I'll just go out and buy one that exists on the market right now.

In some ways, it's probably easier to sell a game that hasn't been made, as opposed to one that exists. The one that exists has its disappointments, its weak spots and frustrations - an as-yet unmade game is all sky-high potential.

I once observed a forum glitch where the post count of certain users was erroneously displayed as 2^32 - PostCount. Many accusations of 'no life' and 'forum nerd' ensued.

As for KickStarter, I'm glad that a viable alternative to big publishers is being pursued, but the success rate has to be reasonable or people are going to get disenchanted. Have any of the projects been offering a small royalty on sales? Publishers are generally clueless about game quality when they aren't dealing with established franchises - consider Super Meat Boy and Splosion Man, for example.

I am willing to take the risk on paying out a relatively small cost for a pre-order, in exchange for having games in niche markets that may otherwise never get off the ground.

Kickstarter is a chance to get away from COD and BF XCIV and get to some unique games or revive genres that have become stagnant in recent years. Just have to wait and see if more projects deliver the goods than horribly fail.

I was playing a couple simulators today and thinking how they need to make more, but the market isn't there anymore. A lot of these studios are still around with tons of talent, but no money to get the development started. Kickstarter would be a great starting point for getting a Falcon 5.0 off the ground. (Pun not intended.)

After latest announcements of Valve porting Steam and its Source engine to Linux, Blizzard porting Diablo III to Linux, EA (gasp?!) porting a lot of their titles to Linux, to me it would make more sense to invest in Linux platform unification and better support of hardware to allow other, smaller studios to follow.

Indie developers would feel more at home under Linux because people could also contribute code and art in addition to money thus making it even more engaging experience.

One thing that I have been wondering about is what happens to the games after they deliver. If there is a huge kickstarer success, how would the funders feel if it is being sold on Steam for $5 next year and making the programmer millions while they paid for development and put up more money for a copy of the same game. I also anticipate the first wave of fail to delivers like the Chinese commenter in the article. I am bearish on Kickstarter.

How would you feel knowing that you stayed in line for the midnight release of Halo 3, only to see it in a bargain bin the next year for 1/3 what you paid? How would you feel knowing that brand new 2012 Mustang you bought is now 1/3 of it's original price, and that one in the lot that never got sold is now being hawked for cheap to some other guy?

Why are computer parts (HDD, RAM, video cards) so much more expensive at Best Buy then Newegg? People pay a premium for getting things now than later. Is $50 worth playing COD day 1, or is it worth paying $20 day 366 when the new COD makes the old one next to nothing?

How would you feel knowing that you stayed in line for the midnight release of Halo 3, only to see it in a bargain bin the next year for 1/3 what you paid? How would you feel knowing that brand new 2012 Mustang you bought is now 1/3 of it's original price, and that one in the lot that never got sold is now being hawked for cheap to some other guy?

I'm really cheap and my last 10 game purchases have been a humble bundle, four PS2 games from the Gamestop used bin and five games on sale at Steam so I guess I wouldn't know (I have also never bought a car as I live in NYC).

I look at this way. I will already lay down $50 or $60 and buy a game. Take it home and it turns out to be crap. So why not spend $50 to fund the development of Shadowrun, a game I have always wanted to see on the PC? When I saw that one of the original guys from FASA was on kickstarter trying to get money for this game, I was estatic. This provides the audience more oppotunity to decide what gets made rather than the EA Acti/Blizzard boards who are merely interested in profit, not art.

One thing that I have been wondering about is what happens to the games after they deliver. If there is a huge kickstarer success, how would the funders feel if it is being sold on Steam for $5 next year and making the programmer millions while they paid for development and put up more money for a copy of the same game. I also anticipate the first wave of fail to delivers like the Chinese commenter in the article. I am bearish on Kickstarter.

I paid for my copy of the game, and to have the game exist at all. I'd be fine if they gave it away for free after I get my copy.

If they can sell enough to make millions, great. Maybe that will let them make another game that I want to play, and it might encourage the big publishers to fund more interesting titles again.

I was very tempted to donate to the double fine adventure and Wasteland 2, but ultimately, it's asking me to put money in for a game that may or may not ever actually get made and may or may not suck when it's finished. Ultimately, I'd rather hold on to my cash and buy it when it's done, if it's good.

I think it is the sense of camaraderie that helps kickstarter along. Most of the smaller ones I've backed (i.e. not Wasteland 2 or Shadowrun) I've got messages back from the devs thanking me for helping them make their game. One even thanked me on three separate occasions, one for my initial backing, one for raising my pledge and one when he came across a blog post I put up about his game. Even if the game suck I still get a good feeling knowing that I actually helped him make the game he wanted to make, something that wouldn't have happened without me.

I don’t think I’d mind if I see the game on sale for $5 a year or two down the road. All that does remind me that I helped it get there, that in some small part, I am responsible for the games success.

One thing that I have been wondering about is what happens to the games after they deliver. If there is a huge kickstarer success, how would the funders feel if it is being sold on Steam for $5 next year and making the programmer millions while they paid for development and put up more money for a copy of the same game. I also anticipate the first wave of fail to delivers like the Chinese commenter in the article. I am bearish on Kickstarter.

I have no objection to other people getting the game for less than I contributed. In fact, I'd actually be willing to contribute more if the developers were offering to release the game under an open license and give it away for free.

I've seen other people ask that question before, and the first time I saw it I was genuinely surprised because the attitude it assumes just seemed very foreign to my way of thinking.

The fundamental reality is that games/movies/music are available for free to everyone anyway. DRM doesn't stop piracy. Legal threats don't stop piracy. Despite this, many people who know how to pirate media, and are not afraid of being caught, still choose to pay. The Humble Bundles allow you to pay what you want, and the average payment is more than $0.01.

The truth is that despite all of the major publishers' attempts to set the prices on their products, the world is operating on a pay-what-you-want model. Kickstarter and the Humble Bundles are simply acknowledging that reality rather than trying to fight it. Fortunately, most people are willing to pay for the content they like, even when they don't have to, and some are willing to pay far more than the retail price of a game, and are willing to pay even at the risk of a failed project.

Supporting a project on Kickstarter is an acknowledgement that getting a copy of a finished game for free is easy, but creating that game is not easy or free, and it won't happen if the developers can't make a living doing it. Some projects will be outright failures. Some will be completed but not very good. That's a risk you take, in order to support the ones that end up being great.

While your contribution may earn you a copy of the game, that's not really what you're paying for when you contribute. What you're paying for, is to support the creation of something new, that may or may not turn out well. A copy of the game could easily be obtained by anyone for free, but only if the game gets created in the first place.

After seeing this question about cheap retail sales vs. high Kickstarter contributions being asked so many times, I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the strong anti-piracy sentiment that I see in many comments isn't so much a matter of people being angry about the creators losing money, but rather people being angry that someone else is getting something for free, while they chose to pay for it. As I said above, this attitude seems very foreign to me. It's just not relevant to me what someone else paid. If I consider a project to be worth supporting, I'm glad to contribute, and I don't care if someone else paid less (or nothing at all).

Here's a concern and mitzvah. Since investors are on kickstarter, few will have to be compensated, some will be given a free game.

Basically unlike game investors, we see no return.

HOWEVER

The games end up being overall cheaper. A $20 for a good game, or $10 VS $50-$60 for a game. The difference is that if I support 40 kickstarter projects at $1 each and yield 3 good games, I will be WAY better off money wise of supporting 40 projects + buying 3 games than buying 3 AAA games with probably 2/3 sucking big time. And those 3 good indie games, chances are they won't kickstarter for their next good game because they will have made money.

So yea. Thats investment: NOT EVERY INVESTMENT IS A WINER! However if you diversify you can get much more than just a safe buy.

At some point in gaming... better graphics were the goal. Each game competed on that. Today I think the graphics capabilities are MORE than enough to make me drool over beautiful landscapes, even if the capabilities are 5 years old. However most of the time you get shit like Oblivion/Fallout 3/Skyrim where its pretty, has tons of content, but most of it is go here, swing sword 3 times, go here, swing sword a whooping 6 times (ooooooh), go here talk to this guy, swing sword 3 times. Today's games are geared towards: Less game, more graphics, less fun, more addiction.

I was very tempted to donate to the double fine adventure and Wasteland 2, but ultimately, it's asking me to put money in for a game that may or may not ever actually get made and may or may not suck when it's finished. Ultimately, I'd rather hold on to my cash and buy it when it's done, if it's good.

Wasteland 2 and DF's project are the things you can count on to most likely be done, as in with near certainty. They're established teams of industry pros with reputations to maintain and now they've got a few million dollars' worth of responsibility to their backers. It's the games by people freshly out of a CS degree that you should think twice about.

I was very tempted to donate to the double fine adventure and Wasteland 2, but ultimately, it's asking me to put money in for a game that may or may not ever actually get made and may or may not suck when it's finished. Ultimately, I'd rather hold on to my cash and buy it when it's done, if it's good.

Wasteland 2 and DF's project are the things you can count on to most likely be done, as in with near certainty. They're established teams of industry pros with reputations to maintain and now they've got a few million dollars' worth of responsibility to their backers. It's the games by people freshly out of a CS degree that you should think twice about.

The good thing about Kickstarter is that you can choose how much to contribute. I gave $100 to Wasteland 2 because I'm a big fan of Wasteland, and I have a pretty high degree of confidence in the team creating it. On other projects that I have relatively high confidence in, I tend to contribute around $50. For a project that seems like it has a higher risk of failure, I'd be more inclined to contribute in the $15 - $25 range.

I don't expect every project I help fund to produce a great product. Some of them will likely be flops, but that doesn't bother me at all. I contribute so that the creators at least get the opportunity to try, even if not all of them are successful. To me, it's worth a few dollars to give them a chance.

I'd much rather pay for the creation of something new (even if it might be a flop) than pay for a copy of something that already exists (even if I know it's good), and I'm willing to pay even more for the creation of something new from a creator who has earned my trust by creating good things in the past.

I was very tempted to donate to the double fine adventure and Wasteland 2, but ultimately, it's asking me to put money in for a game that may or may not ever actually get made and may or may not suck when it's finished. Ultimately, I'd rather hold on to my cash and buy it when it's done, if it's good.

Wasteland 2 and DF's project are the things you can count on to most likely be done, as in with near certainty. They're established teams of industry pros with reputations to maintain and now they've got a few million dollars' worth of responsibility to their backers. It's the games by people freshly out of a CS degree that you should think twice about.

I would be surprised if those projects (DF & Wasteland 2) don't eventually deliver something, but there's still a risk that it might suck. I loved Wasteland many, many years ago on my Commodore 64, but nostalgia is always viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

Cesar Torres / Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City.